From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22505 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2013 19:21:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 22492 invoked by uid 89); 5 Aug 2013 19:21:04 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:21:00 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r75JKiAA002071; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 21:20:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id r75JKhN7009020; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 21:20:43 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:21:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201308051920.r75JKhN7009020@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: tromey@redhat.com CC: palves@redhat.com, lgustavo@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <87bo5c7y0x.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (message from Tom Tromey on Mon, 05 Aug 2013 13:11:58 -0600) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Refactor common/target-common into meaningful bits References: <51FA9649.5060008@codesourcery.com> <87vc3pfghs.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <51FAA061.4050005@codesourcery.com> <51FB7BFB.90100@redhat.com> <87txj7byz7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <51FF81E6.7050006@redhat.com> <87bo5c7y0x.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 13:11:58 -0600 > > >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> I've read your email several times over, and I sense that we're > Pedro> talking past each other. > > Yeah. And thanks for your follow-up, I think it is clarifying. > > Pedro> Yep. So, if we move the classic "target" bits to a "target/" > Pedro> module directory, and put the native bits in their own dir, we > Pedro> have: > > Pedro> target/resume.h > Pedro> target/waitstatus.[c|h] > Pedro> target/wait.h > Pedro> nat/i386-nat.c > Pedro> nat/linux-nat.c > Pedro> nat/linux-ptrace.c > Pedro> nat/linux-waitpid.c > Pedro> etc. > > Pedro> Is this what you're thinking of? _This_, I'm fine with. > > Yeah, this is what I think we ought to do. > > Pedro> It's actually very similar to something else I suggested on IRC, > Pedro> but forgot to put in email form: "IMO, the interfaces themselves > Pedro> would be in an include dir. e.g., > Pedro> gdb/include/target-waitstatus.h or some such, and then we'd have > Pedro> gdb/nat/linux-nat.c, etc." > > I'm usually against include dirs, but if they are near enough to the > implementation it is ok by me. My issue with them is mainly > forgettability -- like, I never, ever remember to look for things in > src/include/gdb; and then directories like this tend to become forgotten > graveyards. Yea, we shouldn't put anything in src/include/gdb unless it is absolutely necessary. That pretty much translates into "unless sim needs it".